Imagine an alien planet circling a distant sun, whose land masses have things that one could reasonably call forests, huge colonies of stationary living entities, but there is no way in hell that you could call those entities "trees", as they lack leaves and wood and chlorophyll, and pretty much anything that suggests that they might be trees, except they're part of something that would very much appear to be a forest.

Then we'd better change the definition of forest to be more consistent, or call it something else.

I agree with this. I find myself getting along very well with INTJ and ISTJ for this reason. Some of the INTJs that I met in real life are the nicest people ever.

Like I have an INTJ classmate of mine (she self-typed herself as INTJ, and I agree with her self-typing, her thinking style and everything is so similar to Hilary Clinton, whom I believed is an INTJ as well) who is the most selfless person I ever met in my life. She is not very verbal and she doesn't express her feelings much, but she would often show her care and concern for people through practical actions. And true to her INTJ label, she is every teacher's pet because she would always score top in class in every exam and assignments, but at the same time, she is so humble, she doesn't look down on people who are struggling in their studies, but instead, she would go around the entire class and offer her help. Whenever she sees me feeling down, she will start dropping some words of wisdom and give me some advice about life. She is very deep, very wise, very intelligent, very caring. Although INTJs often appear blunt and asshole on the surface, but their tertiary Fi can make them very kind and caring at times. But of course, this is not visible on the surface because it's hidden deep deep beneath their tough exterior. It would take a very perceptive person to notice their soft warm gooey side that they keep hidden from the entire world.

What kind of people do you meet? Sounds like this could be found off of an anime show.

ForeverFlowing

Originally Posted by Mole

Aesthetics and morality are closely related. But too many of us have bad taste.

Imagine an alien planet circling a distant sun, whose land masses have things that one could reasonably call forests, huge colonies of stationary living entities, but there is no way in hell that you could call those entities "trees", as they lack leaves and wood and chlorophyll, and pretty much anything that suggests that they might be trees, except they're part of something that would very much appear to be a forest.

Appearance can be decieving. You would have to go back to definitions to determine if it's really a forest and also by who's definition and what version of the definition as that can change as well.

Reality is not imaginative as well, it's real. Now who is to say your imagination isn't real. Logic says it could very much be real, in which your case it makes you more of a prophet as opposed to having an imagination.

Just to point out that deserts are classified as forests... and there are no trees in a desert. Also, coral reefs are forests. Those don't have any trees either... This debate about trees and forests is pointless. There is more then one type of forest. DUH. Use a different comparison please.

Also. I love the asshats that are INTJ's. Their sarcastic humor tickles my funny bone. Because of their introversion, you don't see that assholeness coming sometimes. But when they DO open their mouth, it's pure gold and it's outright hilarious... when not pointed in my direction.

"Advance, and never halt, for advancing is perfection. Advance and do not fear the thorns in the path, for they draw only corrupt blood."
-Kahlil Gibran

So, if facts are truth, how does someone discern if an authoritative-sounding statement is a truth or a lie? Say for instance, "we have reason to believe Iraq has WMDs." Certainly there were enough facts on the table to determine that, purely going by the facts, this would be a reasonable conclusion. To many people, it also felt like the right thing to do, based on a variety of emotions. Nothing else about that made sense to me, though; nothing else added up.

Well, there is more than one fact here to check. The difference between a lie and an error becomes relevant. If the administration says, "we have reason to believe X", you can question whether X is true, but you can also question whether they actually believe X is true. X could be false, and they know it to be false, but they announce it as misinformation. Or, X could be false but they really do think it's true, in which case it is an "honest" error, based perhaps on poor judgment and inadequate investigation. Finally, of course, X can be true and they also believe it to be true. (I'm excluding the fourth case due to how your example was worded.)

As a citizen, we need to assess both "facts". @uumlau described a reasonable process for vetting such claims. It is fine to consider what makes logical sense, but not as a way to exclude possibilities outright, but rather to set the threshold of what evidence is required. A rule of thumb often attributed to Carl Sagan is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Also, as Uumlau described, sometimes the answer doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by uumlau

Remember the part where I said you need to go look it up yourself? If you had looked it up yourself, you would have read "Male" on my profile page. It's one of those pesky things called "facts" that you keep on talking about but never actually employ in your arguments. (Which is in itself ironic, as I am not arguing with you, but illustrating perspectives of what truth really looks like.)

I could put "male" on my profile page as well, but that doesn't make it true. How do we ascertain the truth in these cases?

Originally Posted by uumlau

I'm sure there's an INTP/INTJ perspective dispute going on, here, as you suggest, but that doesn't change my overall point about your statements. You're worried about whether something is "true" or not, and assert that "logic" would resolve all of these perceived difficulties. It is possible - and extremely common - to have all the facts, to have them all be true, and still be no closer to resolving a real life problem than if you had no facts at all. You are missing the forest (the overall truth and context) for the trees (individual facts).

Yes. I wish I had a dollar for every time I tried to short-circuit some pointless debate about a fact that really didn't matter in the end at all.

I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Well, there is more than one fact here to check. The difference between a lie and an error becomes relevant. If the administration says, "we have reason to believe X", you can question whether X is true, but you can also question whether they actually believe X is true. X could be false, and they know it to be false, but they announce it as misinformation. Or, X could be false but they really do think it's true, in which case it is an "honest" error, based perhaps on poor judgment and inadequate investigation. Finally, of course, X can be true and they also believe it to be true. (I'm excluding the fourth case due to how your example was worded.)

Right, but there are those who think X is true, when X is really false, and when presented with information that X is false, continue to insist that X is true. I look at that person as being dishonest; the sort of person who persists in believing in things that are known to be false.

If enough people insist that X is true when it's false, then some people will look at that as an "objective fact", simply based on the fact that it's a popular claim. Not everyone puts in the research to determine which facts are accurate, and which aren't.

As a citizen, we need to assess both "facts". @uumlau described a reasonable process for vetting such claims. It is fine to consider what makes logical sense, but not as a way to exclude possibilities outright, but rather to set the threshold of what evidence is required. A rule of thumb often attributed to Carl Sagan is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Also, as Uumlau described, sometimes the answer doesn't matter.

I'm not comfortable with the idea that the answer doesn't matter, unless it is not possible to gather enough information due to limitations, such as a Schrodinger's cat type situation.

I could put "male" on my profile page as well, but that doesn't make it true. How do we ascertain the truth in these cases?

Right, but there are those who think X is true, when X is really false, and when presented with information that X is false, continue to insist that X is true. I look at that person as being dishonest; the sort of person who persists in believing in things that are known to be false.

If enough people insist that X is true when it's false, then some people will look at that as an "objective fact", simply based on the fact that it's a popular claim. Not everyone puts in the research to determine which facts are accurate, and which aren't.

Sometimes those people are just dumb, or wilfully ignorant. If people won't do some homework on issues that are important to them, they shouldn't be surprised to have the wool pulled over their eyes. This is why disinformation/propaganda works: people are too gullible, or too often wilfully ignorant.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not comfortable with the idea that the answer doesn't matter, unless it is not possible to gather enough information due to limitations, such as a Schrodinger's cat type situation.

If a question has, say, 3 possible answers, and upon considering each, you realize it wouldn't change your decision, then the answer doesn't matter. You would be amazed how many people will enter knock-down, drag-out arguments trying to get to the bottom of this sort of fact.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Information gathering? Is that the point you are trying to make?

No, simply how hard it can be to determine the truth, even for a very small, simple, factual matter. (Also another illustration of how the answer often doesn't matter.)

I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Sometimes those people are just dumb, or wilfully ignorant. If people won't do some homework on issues that are important to them, they shouldn't be surprised to have the wool pulled over their eyes. This is why disinformation/propaganda works: people are too gullible, or too often wilfully ignorant.

Yes, well, unfortunately, we live in a society that often holds willful ignorance up as a virtue.

If a question has, say, 3 possible answers, and upon considering each, you realize it wouldn't change your decision, then the answer doesn't matter. You would be amazed how many people will enter knock-down, drag-out arguments trying to get to the bottom of this sort of fact.

Yes, it really wouldn't change the way I act if God did or didn't exist. I look at the whole question as being irrelevant.

No, simply how hard it can be to determine the truth, even for a very small, simple, factual matter. (Also another illustration of how the answer often doesn't matter.)